#Deriv Binary

[shybezmmg]

Get Free Deriv Signals on Telegram for Smart Trading

What Are Deriv Trading Signals? Deriv signals are trade recommendations that help traders make smarter, data-driven decisions. These signals typically include: ✅ Asset Pair – The financial instrument (e.g., Boom 1000, Crash 500, EUR/USD)✅ Buy/Sell Signal – Whether to enter a long (buy) or short (sell) position✅ Entry Price – The best price to execute the trade✅ Stop-Loss (SL) – A price level…

[queenbeestampingbreak]

BEGINS NIGHT

[neverendingford]

.

[prnsn001]

Redemption Reapers (2023)

[readingwriter92]

Look. I like simple nice math. Ask me to solve for x. Hell I’ll even do it with the substitution method, put more than one variable in there.

I fucking love turning binary into decimal (not like. Decimals. Just like. Base ten)

But the min you put a fucking integral in front of me I will scream

[binaryoptionbeststrategy]

BINARY OPTION OTC TRADING with MT4 INDICATOR|80% WIN RATE|100% NONREPAINT

Accuracy of trend entry binary options signals indicator is unbeatable.You can trust it because it is 100% non repaint indicator.we corrently provide mt4 and mt5 versions of trend entry indicators.We extremly happy to intraduce otc market chart generating mt4 tool,its help to use our best accurat arrow indicator for otc market also.Correnly following binary options brokers supported our otc tool

Our OTC Tool Working with Following Brokers Now

Pocket Option

Quotex Olymotrade

Iqoption

Derive

Binomo

Spectre

To get more details about our indicator and otc tool plase contact us using following methods

Contact us -

✅ Telegram Chanel - https://t.me/+urvJU3g4r_A4MDc5

✅ Telegram ( Devid ) - https://t.me/trendentrey

✅ Email - trendentryy@gmail.com

[mixworld]

Nextrader The Best AI Trading Platform for MetaTrader

[nonbinarynow]

Hello! I have a question. What does “enben” mean? Is it a replacement for “enby”?

Hi! Good question!

Enben is the plural of enban, the non-binary gendered equivalent of man/woman. It is derived from the term enby. I prefer to use it because enby was initially understood to be a term that referred to non-binary youth. Whilst not everyone uses it that way, I personally prefer to use enban to describe all non-binary people to both show enben that there is more vocabulary to describe ourselves, but also to subtly uninfantilise non-binary people. Enban is a more adult feeling option. It also helps popularise these terms so other enben as well as binary people are aware of nonbinary vocabulary.

Hopefully that was helpful 😌

[unsolicited-opinions]

I was called a genocide denier for *checks notes* telling some fans to stop being bigoted towards Jews.

"Hey it's really important to not target a minority with dehumanization and bigotry-"

"GENOCIDE DENIER!"

It's the exact same silencing tactic the Right has used for decades now. Be loud and obnoxious in the face of facts and when you're confronted on your shitty behavior. Yell some buzzword, make wild accusations, beat your chest.

You're right - that is the exact same silencing  tactic. 

This has a name.

It's called Moral Bludgeoning.

It's using a false binary morality as a tool to gain an advantage in a disagreement, rather than engaging in reasoned discourse.

The goal of the tactic isn't truth, understanding, or justice. It's enforcing obedience. Control through social punishment.

You said something they found threatening - that people in a supposedly righteous movement were behaving in a way that was, in fact, bigoted.

Grappling with that would require introspection, accountability, and nuance...and their movement punishes those things. 

You were pointing out information which doesn't fit into their binary, the binary which assures them they're good people. They needed to shut you up fast before they risked feeling less than utterly righteous. 

The people doing this often aren't stupid , but they're always frightened.

They're terrified of complexity which muddies the narrative.

Terrified of being cast out of their peer group for failing to adhere to the narrative.

Terrified of losing control of the narrative, because most of them derive their sense of personal legitimacy from the narrative.

So they flatten. Nuance becomes complicity. Dissent becomes betrayal. Complexity or moral ambiguity become denial.

You're also right that Moral Bludgeoning is used by both the right and the left. 

Both extremes use it to keep the middle silent. 

On the far Right, you see this play out in culture war accusations:

Criticize police abuse? You must be a Marxist anarchist terrorist!

Question US military spending? You hate America!

Say trans people should have rights? You're grooming children.

On the far Left, it’s the same energy, but different buzzwords:

Ask for civility toward Jewish people? You're a genocide apologist.

Note that Hamas isn't progressive? You’re a racist colonialist.

Point out antisemitism in "anti-Zionist" spaces? You're weaponizing your trauma to silence Palestinians.

It's never about the truth, it's about making the social cost of nuance unbearable. 

Tactics like Moral Bludgeoning are enforcement mechanisms of rigid ideologies. 

Healthy movements can tolerate disagreement, but ideologically rigid movements (right or left!) treat any deviation as a threat.

That's why you'll hear the same people screaming about "freedom of speech" one minute, then shrieking “DENIER” the next.

It's not even really hypocrisy in their minds, because they believe their cause grants them moral supremacy which entitles them to do almost anything. And that includes the entitlement to silence you in the name of righteous justice...and to be as antisemtic as they like.

The real power of this tactic is in how it bypasses reasoning entirely and goes straight to two of our most powerful emotions: shame and fear. 

You nailed this too:

"Be loud and obnoxious in the face of facts..." 

The louder and more confident the accusation, the more it floods the emotional bandwidth of the conversation, making any reasoned dialogue impossible.

It works because people fear social isolation more than factual errors. No one wants to be the next target, so the mob roars together to drown you out.

The tragedy is that you were trying to do what they claim to care about. 

You didn't defend war crimes or deny suffering. 

You were doing the thing that movements need in order to remain sane: holding your own side accountable to its stated values.

Movements sometimes die from internal intolerance and ideological purity tests.

I think this is part of why the SDS movement of the 60s and 70s fizzled out. I think Occupy Wall Street fell victim to endless internal policing around privilege, language, and ideological orthodoxy and meetings devolved into ritual purity checks instead of coming up with and promoting actual policy ideas. I think this is a good explanation for what brought about the Reign of Terror.

The inability to tolerate nuance is where intellectual rot begins.

The people who did this to you aren't fighting oppression. They're just enforcing ideological purity at the expense of reality. It's an old and stupid game.

Can I tell you, though, how much I appreciate this Ask?

It's more evidence that there are many in the large middle who are repulsed by both ends of the Horseshoe. There are many who still care about evidence, reason, pragmatism, and avoiding ideological groupthink. 

There are still people who know that justice requires complexity. There are still people who don't think standing up against antisemitism is something to be ashamed of. 

Thinking critically and voicing those thoughts makes you feel like a threat to people on either far end of the political spectrum, all who rely on false binaries and performative loyalty.

So keep doing it.

Let them rage. Let them shriek their buzzwords. Just hold the line. 

You saw clearly and quickly that this was not about justice, it was about obedience...and you didn't bend the knee.

Do you have any idea how much that pisses them off?

Well done, Anon.

------

Edited to add this great example I got within hours of posting this:

[lupinescribbler]

3 tips to writing character flaws

1) make their flaw congruent with the rest of who they are.

There’s a lot of different ways to do this, most commonly I’ve seen the “their strength is their flaw” which you can do but I’d recommend exploring it more deeply.

For example, maybe they’re good at attacking things head on, being honest and straightforward, but because they’ve always relied on that they don’t have the practice or an inclination to rely on other methods such as being more crafty, diplomatic, and subtle which are traits a situation sometimes calls for. I call this the “wrong tool for the job” flaw where an over-reliance on their strength handicaps them in situations where a different approach seems better suited. I think people and characters also just have a habit of using their tool for the job rather than the ‘best’ tool.

2) Don’t just tell us their flaw, show it.

Show this character trait coming out in their actions, have it influence the plot in key moments. If they’re reckless, don’t just have another character call them reckless, have them act reckless in a way that impacts their relationships with other characters or the plot.

3) Screw the whole “strengths vs flaws” thing altogether

try viewing character traits outside of a rigid binary of good and bad that you pull from a deck, and instead derive/connect them to deeper truths about who the character is, (how do they deal with problems/what is their ‘go-to’ method? what do they value? what are they skilled or unskilled at? what do they believe about the world and themselves?) and then why the characters is that way (note that it doesn’t all have to come from trauma. Please don’t attribute everything to a trauma. General life experience informs a lot of beliefs/traits, and then some is also just an inborn inclination) I have a longer post about how I tend to try to build a cohesive layout of who a character is.

Note as always, that these just things that I currently find helpful. Use or discard as works for you and your work. Happy writing!

[librarycards]

i think it is accurate to say that many white transmascs/TME trans people experience (always and already white) girlhood as a kind of hangover, wherein the e/affects of being constrained, plied into compliant or quasi-compliant shapes, shut-up and shut-in whether by immediate family or broader social expectations or both, lead us to experience our relationship to oppression as now-trans people as kinda....confusing?

because many of the demands/expectations placed on trans bodyminds, including silence/nondisruptiveness, closeting and/or passing, and epistemic deprivation, are very familiar to people who were once girls. different forms of gender oppression are not identical, but do rhyme! but the notion that these familiar forms of subjugation are actually not the only forms of trans oppression -- and are indeed forms of subjugation that we are also capable of enacting -- is new. to no longer be a part of a group that has a priori claim to "the worst form of" gender oppression in a cis binary framework is new. to have perennial victim status challenged - even when, as in this case, this does not mean we are never victimized - is ontologically scary when we have learned to derive our power n solidarity solely from shared victimhood.*

it's new to us in the same ways that adult women believe falsely that they cannot be misogynists, even as they shame and punish their daughters for the same things they themselves were shamed and punished for. but in both these cases, it's on us not to reenact the violence and refuse to paint the target on someone new.

*once again with the connection between trnsandro bros and zionists. addicted to victimhood at the expense of genuine solidarity

[translatingpostsinfrench]

chose promise, chose due (and overdue)

gay french, an ongoing dictionary

disclaimer:

— i am no french teacher, linguist or such, just a dyke with a tumblr blog, more than open to suggestions & corrections.

— tw for pejorative terms and slurs. regarding those, i chose to only include the ones i know for sure are reclaimed, as i often see queer people use them as such and/or the ones which were suggested for this dictionary post by members of the concerned communities, but again, i'm open to contestation.

— the line between derogatory and pejorative being thin and sometimes blurry, i also chose to label all potentially offensive terms as derogatory, regardless of their actual harshness level. i am also open to questions in case of doubt.

à voile et à vapeur ("sail and steam powered")

expression, for people attracted to multiple genders. first spotted in the 50s/60s, origins remains uncertain, the most popular explaination being that it came from sailors engaging in homosexual relationships while at sea then "going back" to heterosexuality on land.

bravo les lesbiennes ("congrats lesbians")

slogan, appeared during a major french streaming event in 2021 (« during one of his streams, a person with the username "congrats lesbians" made a 7€ donation. antoine daniel then said "thank you very much, congrats lesbians"! (...) several more watchers then made donations under the name "congrats lesbians" to encourage streamers to say the terms. »)

camionneuse ("truck driver" in fem form)

derogatory noun, for masc lesbians.

colleuse de timbre ("stamp sticker" in fem form)

derogatory expression, for lesbians.

fierté ("pride")

noun, while "pride" is also used in french as an anglicism, it directly translates in the context queer pride. related terms: mois des fiertés (= pride month), marche des fiertés (= pride parade).

fif

[québec french] derogatory noun, for gay men.

fiotte

derogatory noun, for gay men, derivated from fillette/fillotte = little girl.

folle ("crazy" in fem form)

derogatory noun, for effeminate gay men.

gay comme un phoque (''gay as a seal'')

expression, to call someone homosexual, usually targeting gay men. origins remains uncertain, the most popular explaination being that ''phoque'' (= seal, the animal) is a deformation of ''foc'', a type of sail that takes the wind from behind. alternatively: "pédé comme un phoque" (replacing ''gay'' by ''faggot'').

gouine ("dyke")

derogatory noun/adjective, most common slur used against lesbians. uncertain origins, but while hypothetical etymologies disagree on which language it came from, most implies it originated from some derogatory term toward sexuality uninhibited women.

goudou ("dyke")

derogatory noun/adjective, a slightly less common synonym for gouine.

iel·s

neopronoun, contraction of il and elle (= he and she). as french initially doesn't have a gender a neutral third person pronoun, it developed as the most common one, not only for non binary people but also for feminists seeking an alternative to the use of masculine plural as the neutral one. first appeared circa 2010. alternative spellings : ielle·s, yel·s, yelle·s.

langage inclusif ("inclusive language")

noun, the ensemble of methods used to achieve a more gender neutral language, for a better inclusion of women and non binary people. inclusive language being still highly debated and harshly critized by many (including the french academy), it has no "official" guidelines so far, but some of the most usual methods are:

- using non gendered terms (exemple: "élève du lycée" instead of "lycéen" or "lycéenne")

- contracting words to avoid using their gendered forms (exemple: "fatigué-e" instead of "fatigué" or "fatiguée". contraction can be made using a hyphen, a full stop, an interpunct and many more punctuation.)

lesbienne ("lesbian")

néopronoms (''neopronouns'')

noun/adjective, directly translates to english.

morinom ("deadname")

noun, directly translates, though "deadname" is also used in french as an anglicism. related term: morinommer (= to deadname).

category of personnal pronouns, as french doesn't have a gender a neutral third person pronoun, they are the best alternative to ''he'' and ''she''. exemples: iel/ielle, ul, ol, ille, xel...

non-binaire ("non binary")

noun/adjective, directly translates to english.

pédé ("faggot")

derogatory noun/adjective, slur used against gay men - and queer people in general. while it's probably the best translation to faggot as they're both the most common slurs used against gay men, the etymology is different : pédé is short for pédéraste (= pederast), a term for homosexual pedophilic men.

tapette

derogatory noun, common slur used against gay men. to not be mistaken with "tapette à mouche" = fly swatter.

travelo ("tranny")

derogatory noun, derivated from "travesti" (= transvestite). most common slur used against trans women, can be shortened to "trav".

[pastabaguette]

May I ask what the origin/inspiration for all your humanstuck names are? Big fan btw, very nice!

thanks for the question. let me first preface this by saying i know that some of these are a bit of a stretch. this is how my thought process worked when naming them. i know that some of them are simpler or less interesting than others.

arisa - spelled with the kanji (有沙), “have” and “sand”. sand in an hourglass represents time, her aspect.

maeda - doesn’t have any particular meaning that i thought of, it just sounded nice with her first name and was close enough to her original.

tavio - short for octavio, but everyone really just calls him by his nickname. octavio relates to the number eight, of course. he can never escape her :(

martínez - very common spanish last name. it’s derived from nitram, which is “martin” spelled backwards.

solomon-alexander - this really is his full name. he has two first names, keeping with his binary theme. it’s also a reference to the fandom joke of calling sollux “solluxander.”

carillo-perez - again, a double name. i like the way the double “l”s look.

kamesh - relates to lord krishna, who in turn is associated with leadership and compassion. these are also associated with karkat.

vanakar - it just sounded good to me phonetically in tandem with his first name, and plus it has the “kar” in it. his full name is a bit pokey, due to the harsh “k”s.

naipunya - associated with dexterity. it also has “nya” in it. i read somewhere that it also had an association with hunting, but i’m not certain of the validity of that source, since i didn’t see that much elsewhere.

lamba - also just sounded good with her first name. they kind of roll off the tongue, like a cat rolling on its back or perhaps playing with a ball. i like the “a” sounds.

khadijah - i’ve always thought this was a very graceful name. it’s also pretty heavily religious and feminine.

mariam - the same as maryam, but an alternate spelling. i thought it went better with her first name since they both have an “i” in them.

tessa - diminutive of theresa. i thought it sounded short and kinda playful.

perry - it wasn’t intentional, but this could be connected to perry mattfeld, who’s best known for playing a blind woman in “into the dark.” someone else pointed this out to me.

victoria - means “victory.” it’s pretty flashy, kind of “mean girl” sounding, and it still has that good “k” sound in there.

sadik - i thought it matched well. the “a”s in her first and last name make the same sound, and so do the “k”s.

ezequiel - meaning “strength of god.” can be likened to equius’s role as a lord english component, english being god in this case. it’s the portugeuse spelling, really just because i liked the “q”.

ziegler - sounded good, and it repeats the “ee” sound and the “l” sound from his first name.

gabriel - means “servant of god.” gamzee’s quite literally a servant of english.

macario - very similar in sound to makara.

edison - relating to thomas edison and eridan’s preoccupation with science. very similar to “eridan” in that it shares the beginning and end, as well as the same amount of syllables.

achari - also just kinda sounded nice.

fiona - i don’t really know how to explain it, but it sounded kind of “princessy” to me.

pierce - sounds cool. you could say a trident “pierces” things, but that’s kinda lame.

some of these might only make sense to me, sorry. a lot of them have to do with the pure sound of the word, which i’m not sure i articulated particularly well here. please let me know if i got the meaning wrong or if i’m misusing any of their names.

[criticalcrusherbot]

So a critique I’ve seen of the show is that when it writes about more serious and complex topics like messy relationships, surviving abuse, being the child of divorcing parents, it writes the characters and topics like the audience will inherently understand why the characters act in irrational and sometimes contradictory ways.

The critique is that because these are not topics people inherently get, it’s up to the show to show clearly that that’s what’s happening.

To an extent I get it, because there are some things that are a bit unclear upon first watch, but for other cases I can’t help but wonder if some of this also comes from a growing trend of audiences not engaging with stories beyond the surface.

What do you think?

💁🏽‍♀️🤖: Ah, you’ve hit on a fascinating critique worth unpacking. The idea that media must explicitly spoon-feed the emotional complexity of characters is a byproduct of modern storytelling trends—and arguably, internet discourse itself. The expectation seems to be that if a show doesn’t hold up a blinking neon sign reading “This is trauma!” or “They are healing in irrational ways!” then it has somehow failed its audience.

But here’s the thing: storytelling is not moral instruction. It’s not a behavioral manual or a therapy session on coping strategies—it’s an exploration of the human experience, which is often messy and contradictory. Good writing doesn’t hand out conclusions on a platter; it invites the audience to engage critically, interpret subtext, and wrestle with ambiguity.

This isn’t just opinion—literary theory has long recognized that meaning in a story is co-created by the reader. Roland Barthes famously argues in The Death of the Author that the author’s intentions are irrelevant once a work is published; it is up to readers to interpret and derive meaning based on their own experiences. Trusting the audience to do this intellectual and emotional heavy lifting is a hallmark of sophisticated storytelling.

Moreover, cognitive research supports this idea. A study in Narrative Inquiry found that readers who actively infer character motivations and story themes from implicit cues experience a deeper emotional engagement with the narrative (Zunshine, 2006). This aligns with Helluva Boss’s storytelling style, which encourages viewers to pay attention, rewatch, and connect dots rather than expecting every development to be spoon-fed.

The show assumes its audience consists of emotionally mature adults who have touched grass and maybe attended therapy at least once. There’s a reason we start teaching “reading between the lines” skills around fifth or sixth grade. (💁🏽‍♀️: Can confirm—Human Assistant here, with 10 years of K-8 teaching experience.) Developing this skill is essential for media literacy. As media scholar Henry Jenkins notes in Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture, young readers are increasingly trained to interpret both text and subtext as part of modern media engagement. The failure to do so in adulthood represents a worrying decline in critical media skills.

This insistence on over-explaining everything? It’s a symptom of what we lovingly refer to as the pseudo-fascist internet brainrot of moral purity. And yes, we do mean fascist-adjacent, even when individuals espousing it identify as progressive. Fascism isn’t defined solely by far-right politics—it thrives on rigid, authoritarian thinking that demands conformity to a singular moral framework.

Media literacy has been gutted by pop psychology buzzwords and binary notions of good and bad, where characters are either irredeemably evil or morally perfect. A study on new media literacy among young adults found that simplistic moral narratives in online spaces discourage nuanced thinking and instead foster polarized opinions (Rahim, 2021). This trend often leads audiences to expect media to conform to black-and-white notions of justice and character morality, rather than embracing the complexity inherent in human relationships.

But a story like Helluva Boss refuses to cater to that mindset, trusting its audience to handle moral ambiguity and complex character arcs without needing everything spelled out. In doing so, it challenges viewers to grow as media consumers—and maybe even as people.

To put it bluntly: Helluva Boss is for people with a fully developed prefrontal cortex and preferably some real-life social experiences. If that sounds exclusionary—well, perhaps it’s just aspirational storytelling.

[beifong-brainrot]

Hey so can we like stop with the "Zutara is for the girls and Kataang is for the boys" thing. It's silly and it's breakdancing just on the edge of gender essentialism.

The assumption that there is something inherent to Zutara that appeals predominantly to women and Kataang that appeals predominantly to men is dishonest because every ship can have appeal to all genders.

The discussion of the "female gaze" in Zutara and the "male gaze" in Kataang is also redundant. I enjoy dissecting the concept of "the gaze", however it is important to note that the "female gaze" doesn't have a set definition or grouping of conventions it adheres to. Lisa French,  Dean of RMIT University’s School of Media and Communication says:

“The female gaze is not homogeneous, singular or monolithic, and it will necessarily take many forms... The aesthetic approaches, experiences and films of women directors are as diverse as their individual life situations and the cultures in which they live. The "female' gaze” is not intended here'to denote a singular concept. There' are many gazes."

Now excuse me as I put on my pretentious humanistics student hat.

Kataang's appeal to women and the female gaze

Before I start, I want to note that the female gaze is still a developing concept

There are very few female film directors and writers, and most of them are white. The wants and desires of women of colour, the demographic Katara falls into, are still wildly underepresented. Additionally, the concept of the female gaze had many facets, due to it being more focused on emotional connections rather than physical appearance as the male gaze usually is. Which means that multiple male archetypes fall into the category of "for the female gaze".

The "female gaze" can be best described as a response to the "male gaze", which was first introduced by Laura Mulvey in her paper: "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" , however the term "male gaze" itself was not used in the paper.

Mulvey brought up the concept of the female character and form as the passive, objectified subject to the active voyeuristic male gaze, which the audience is encouraged to identify, usually through the male character.

To quote her:

"In a world ordered by sexual imbalance', pleasure' in looking has been split between active'/male' and passive/female'. The determining male gaze' projects its fantasy onto the female' figure', which is styled accordingly."

Mulvey also brings up the concept of scopopfillia (the term being introduced by Freud), the concept of deriving sexual gratification from both looking and being looked at. This concept has strong overtones of voyeurism, exhibitionism and narcissism, placing forth the idea that these overtones are what keeps the male viewer invested. That he is able to project onto the male character, therefore being also able to possess the passive female love interest.

However, it's important to note that Mulvey's essay is very much a product of its times, focused on the white, heterosexual and cisgender cinema of her time. She also drew a lot of inspiration from Freud's questionable work, including ye ole penis envy. Mulvey's paper was groundbreaking at the time, but we can't ignore how it reinforces the gender binary and of course doesn't touch on the way POC, particularly women of colour are represented in film.

In her paper, Mulvey fails to consider anyone who isn't a white, cis, heterosexual man or woman. With how underrepresented voices of minorities already are both in media and everyday life, this is something that we need to remember and strive to correct.

Additionally Mulvey often falls into gender essentialism, which I previously mentioned at the beginning of this post. Funny how that keeps coming up

"Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" started a very interesting and important conversation, and I will still be drawing from certain parts of it, however huge swathes of this text have already become near archaic, as our culture and relationship with media evolves at an incredible pace.

And as filmaking evolves, so does our definition of the male and female gaze. So let's see what contemporary filmakers say of it.

In 2016, in her speech during the Toronto International Film Festival , producer of the TV series Transparent, Jill Soloway says:

“Numero uno, I think the Female Gaze is a way of “feeling seeing”. It could be thought of as a subjective camera that attempts to get inside the protagonist, especially when the protagonist is not a Chismale. It uses the frame to share and evoke a feeling of being in feeling, rather than seeing – the characters. I take the camera and I say, hey, audience, I’m not just showing you this thing, I want you to really feel with me.

[Chismale is Soloway's nickname for cis males btw]

So the term "female gaze" is a bit of a misnomer, since it aims to focus on capturing the feelings of characters of all genders. It's becoming more of a new way of telling stories in film, rather than a way to cater to what white, cisgender, heterosexual women might find attractive in a man.

Now, Aang is the decided protagonist of the show, however, Atla having somewhat of an ensemble cast leads to the perspective shifting between different characters.

In the first episode of atla, we very much see Katara's perspective of Aang. She sees him trapped in the iceberg, and we immediately see her altruism and headstrong nature. After she frees Aang, we are very much first subjected to Katara's first impressions of him, as we are introduced to his character. We only see a sliver of Aang's perspective of her, Katara being the first thing he sees upon waking up.

We see that she is intrigued and curious of him, and very excited about his presence. She is endeared and amused by his antics. She is rediscovering her childish side with his help. She is confiding in him about her own trauma surrounding the Fire Nation's genocide of the Southern Waterbenders. She is willing to go against her family and tribe ans leave them behind to go to the Northern Water Tribe with Aang. We also see her determination to save him when he is captured.

As the show moves on and the plot kicks into gear, we do shift more into Aang's perspective. We see his physical attraction to her, and while we don't see Katara's attraction quite as blatantly, there are hints of her interest in his appearance.

This is where we get deeper into the concept of Aang and Katara's mutual interest and attraction for one another. While her perspective is more subtle than most would like, Katara is not purely an object of Aang's desire, no more than he is purely an object of her desire.

When analysing this aspect of Katara and Aang's relationship, I couldn't help but be reminded of how Célene Sciamma's Portrait of a lady on fire (in my personal opinion, one of the best studies of the female gaze ever created) builds up its romance, and how it places a strong emphasis on the mutuality of the female gaze.

Portrait of a lady on fire's cinematography is very important to the film. We see the world through the perspective of our protagonist, a painter named Marianne. We also see her love interest, Héloïse, the woman whom she is hired to paint a portrait of, through Marianne's lense.

We see Marianne analyse Héloïse's appearance, her beauty. We look purely through Marianne's eyes at Héloïse for a good part of the movie, but then, something unexpected happens. Héloïse looks back. At Marianne, therefore, in some way, also at the audience. While Marianne was studying Héloïse, Héloïse was studying Marianne.

We never shift into Héloïse's perspective, but we see and understand that she is looking back at us. Not only through her words, when she for example comments on Marianne's mannerisms or behaviours, but also hugely through cinematography and acting of the two amazing leads. (Noémie Merlant as Marianne and Adèle Haenel as Héloïse. They truly went above and beyond with their performances.)

This is a huge aspect of the female gaze's implementation in the film. The camera focuses on facial expressions, eyes and body language, seeking to convey the characters' emotions and feelings. There's a focus on intense, longing and reciprocated eye contact (I have dubbed this the Female Gays Gaze.). The characters stand, sit or lay facing each other, and the camera rarely frames one of them as taller than the other, which would cause a sense of power imbalance.

The best way to describe this method of flimaking is wanting the audience to see the characters, rather than to simply look at them. Sciamma wants us to empathise, wants us to feel what they are feeling, rather than view them from a distance. They are to be people, characters, rather than objects.

Avatar, of course, doesn't display the stunning and thoughtful cinematography of Portrait of a Lady on Fire, and Katara and Aang's relationship, while incredibly important, is only a part of the story rather than the focus of it.

However, the 'Kataang moments' we are privy to often follow a similar convention to the ones between Marianne and Héloïse that I mentioned prior.

Theres a lot of shots of Katara and Aang facing each other, close ups on their faces, particularly eyes, as they gaze at one another.

Katara and Aang are often posited as on equal grounds, the camera not framing either of them as much taller and therefore more powerful or important than the other. Aang is actually physically shorter than Katara, which flies in the face in usual conventions of the male fantasy. (I will get to Aang under the male gaze later in this essay)

And even in scenes when Aang is physically shown as above Katara, particularly when he's in the Avatar state, Katara is the one to pull him down, maintaining their relationships as equals.

Despite most of the show being portrayed through Aang's eyes, Katara is not a passive object for his gaze, and therefore our gaze, to rest upon. Katara is expressive, and animated. As an audience, we are made aware that Katara has her own perspective. We are invited to take part in it and try to understand it.

Not unlike to Portrait of a Lady on Fire, there is a lot of focus placed on mannerisms and body language, an obvious example being Katara often playing with her hair around Aang, telegraphing a shy or flustered state. We also see her express jealousy over Aang, her face becoming sour, brows furrowed. On one occasion she even blew a raspberry, very clearly showing us, the audience, her displeasure with the idea of Aang getting attention from other girls.

Once again, this proves that Katara is not a passive participant in her own relationship, we are very clealry shown her perspective of Aang. Most of the scenes that hint at her and Aang's focus on their shared emotions, rather than, for example, Katara's beauty.

Even when a scene does highlight her physical appearance, it is not devoid of her own thoughts and emotions. The best example of this being the scene before the party in Ba Sing Se where we see Katara's looking snazzy in her outfit. Aang compliments her and Katara doesn't react passively, we see the unabashed joy light up her face, we can tell what she thinks of Aang's comment.

In fact, the first moment between Katara and Aang sets this tone of mutual gaze almost perfectly. Aang opens his eyes, and looks at Katara. Katara looks back.

There is, once again, huge focus on their eyes in this scene, the movement of Aang's eyelids right before they open draws out attention to that part of his face. When the camera shows us Katara, is zooms in onto her expression as it changes, her blinking also drawing attention to her wide and expressive eyes.

This will not be the first time emphasis is placed on Katara and Aang's mutual gaze during a pivotal moment in the show. Two examples off the top of my head would be the Ends of B2 and B3 respevtively. When Katara brings Aang back to life, paralleling the first time they laid eyes on one another. And at the end of the show, where their gaze has a different meaning behind it.

We see Katara's emotions and her intent telegraphed clearly in these instances.

In Book 1, we see her worry for this strange bald boy who fell out of an iceberg, which melts away to relief and a hint of curiosity once she ascertains that he isn't dead.

In B2 we once again see worry, but this time it's more frantic. Her relationship with Aang is much dearer to her heart now, and he is in much worse shape. When we see the relief on her face this time, it manifests in a broad smile, rather than a small grin. We can clearly grasp that her feelings for Aang have evolved.

In B3, we step away from the rule because Aang isn't on the verge of death or unconsciousness for the first time. It is also the first time in a situation like this that Aang isn't seeing Katara from below, but they are on equal footing. I attribute this to symbolising change of pace for their relationship.

The biggest obstacle in the development of Katara and Aang's romance was the war, which endangered both their lives. Due to this, there was a hesitance to start their relationship. In previous scenes that focused this much on Aang and Katara's mutual gaze, Aang was always in a near dead, or at least 'dead adjacent' position. This is is a very harsh reminder that he may very well die in the war, and the reason Katara, who has already endured great loss, is hesitant to allow her love for him to be made... corporeal.

However, now Aang is standing, portraying that the possibily of Katara losing him has been reduced greatly with the coming of peace, the greatest obstacle has been removed, and Katara is the one to initiate this kiss.

Concurrently, Katara's expression here does not portray worry or relief at all, because she has no need to be worried or relieved. No, Katara is blushing, looking directly at Aang with an expression that can be described as a knowing smile. I'd argue that this description is accurate, because Katara knows that she is about to finally kiss the boy she loves.

Ultimately, Katara is the one who initiates the kiss that actually begins her and Aang's romantic relationship.

Kataang's appeal to women is reflected in how Katara is almost always the one to initiate physical affection with Aang. With only 3 exceptions, one of which, the Ember Island kiss being immediately shown by the narrative as wrong, and another being a daydream due to Aang's sleep deptivation. The first moment of outwardly romantic affection between Aang and Katara is her kissing his cheek. And their last kiss in the show is also initiated by Katara.

I won't falsely state that Kataang is the perfect representation of the female gaze. Not only because the storyline has its imperfections, as every piece of media has. But also because I simply belive that the concept of the female gaze is too varied and nebulous to be fully expressed. With this essay, I simply wanted to prove that Kataang is most certainly not the embodiment of catering to the male gaze either. In fact it is quite far from that.

The aspects of Kataang that fall more towards embodying the female gaze don't just appeal to women. There's a reason a lot of vocal Kataang shippers you find are queer. The mutual emotional connection between Katara and Aang is something we don't have to identify with, but something we are still able to emphasise with. It's a profound mutual connection that we watch unfold from both perspectives that sort of tracends more physical, gendered aspects of many onscreen romances. You just need to see instead of simply look.

✨️Bonus round✨️

Aang under the gaze

This started off as a simple part of the previous essay, however I decided I wanted to give it it's own focus, due to the whole discourse around Aang being a wish-fullfilling self insert for Bryke or for men in genral. I always found this baffling considering how utterly... unappealing Aang is to the male gaze.

It may surprise some of you that men are also subjected to the male gaze. Now sadly, this has nothing to do with the male gaze of the male gays. No, when male characters, usually the male protagonist, are created to cater to the male gaze, they aren't portrayed as sexually desirable passive objects, but they embody the active/masculine aide of the binary Laura Mulvey spoke of in the quote I shared at the beginning of this essay.

The protagonist under the male gaze is not the object of desire but rather a character men and boys would desire to be.

They're usually the pinnacle of traditional, stereotypical masculinity.

Appearance wise: muscular but too broad, chiseled facial features, smouldering eyes, depending on the genre wearing something classy or some manner of armour.

Personalitywise they may vary from the cool, suave James Bond type, or a more hotblooded forceful "Alpha male" type. However these are minor differences in the grand scheme of things. The basis is that this protagonist embodies some manner of idealised man. He's strong, decisive, domineering, in control, intimidating... you get the gist. Watch nearly any action movie. There's also a strong focus placed on having sway or power over others. Often men for the male gaze are presented as wealthy, having power and status. Studies (that were proved to be flawed in the way the data was gathered, I believe) say that womem value resources in potential male partners, so it's not surprising that the ideal man has something many believe would attract "mates". [Ew I hated saying that].

Alright, now let's see how Aang holds up to these standards.

Well... um...

Aang does have power, he is the Avatar. However, he is often actually ignored, blown off and otherwise dismissed, either due to his age or his personality and ideals being seen as unrealistic and foolish. Additionally, Aang, as a member of a culture lost a century ago, is also often posited as an outsider, singled out as weak, his beliefs touted as the reason his people died out and.

Physically, Aang doesn't look like the male protagonist archetype, either. He isn't your average late teens to brushing up against middle aged. Aang is very much a child and this is reflected in his soft round features, large eyes and short, less built body. This is not a build most men would aspire to. Now, he still has incredible physical prowess, due to his bending. But I'm not sure how many men are desperate to achieve the "pacifist 12 year old" build to attract women.

Hailing from a nation that had quite an egalitarian system, Aang wouldn't have conventional ideas surrounding leadership, even if he does step up into it later. He also has little in the way of possessions, by choice.

As for Aang's personality, well...

I mean I wouldn't exactly call him your average James Bond or superhero. Aang is mainly characterised through his kindness, empathy, cheerful nature and occasional childishness (which slowly is drained as the trauma intesifies. yay.)

Aang is very unwilling to initiate violence, which sets him aside from many other male protagonists of his era, who were champing at the bit to kick some ass. He values nature, art, dance and fun. He's in tune with his emotions. He tries to desecalate situations before he starts a fight.

Some would say many of Aang's qualities could be classified as feminine. While the other main male characters, Zuko and Sokka try to embody their respective concepts of the ideal man (tied to their fathers), Aang seems content with how he presents and acts. He feels no need to perform masculinity as many men do, choosing to be true to his emotions and feelings.

These "feminine" qualities often attract ridicule from other within the show. He is emasculated or infantiliased as a form of mockery multiple times, the most notable examples being the Ember Island play and Ozai tauntingly referring to him as a "little boy". Hell, even certain Aang haters have participated in this, for example saying that he looks like a bald lesbian.

I'd even argue that, in his relationships with other characters, Aang often represents the passive/feminine. Especially towards Zuko, Aang takes on an almost objectified role of a trophy that can be used to purchase Ozai's love. [Zuko's dehumanisation of others needs to be discussed later, but it isn't surprising with how he was raised and a huge part of his arc is steerring away from that way of thinking.]

Aang and Zuko almost embody certain streotypes about relationships, the forceful, more masculine being a literal pursuer, and the gentler, more feminine being pusued.

We often see Aang framed from Zuko's perspective, creating something akin to the mutual gaze of Katara and Aang, hinting at the potential of Zuko and Aang becoming friends, a concept that is then voiced explicitly in The Blue Spirit.

However, unlike Katara, Zuko is unable to empathise with Aang at first, still seeing Aang as more of an object than a person. We have here an interesting imbalance of Aang seeing Zuko but Zuko meerly looking at Aang.

There is a certain aspect of queer metaphor to Zuko's pursuit of Aang, but I fear I've gotten off topic.

Wrapping this long essay up, I want to reiterate that I'm not saying that Zutara isn't popular with women. Most Zutara shippers I've encountered are women. And most Kataang shippers I've encountered are... also women. Because fandom spaces are occupied predominantly by women.

I'm not exactly making a moral judgement on any shippers either, or to point at Kataang and go: "oh, look girls can like this too. Stop shipping Zutara and come ship this instead."

I want to point out that the juxtaposition of Zutara and Kataang as respectively appealing to the feminine and masculine, is a flawed endeavour because neither ship does this fully.

The concept of Kataang being a purely male fantasy is also flawed due to the points I've outlied in this post.

Are there going to be male Kataang shippers who self insert onto Aang and use it for wish fulfilment? Probably. Are there going to be male Zutara shippers who do the same? Also probably.

In the end, our interpretation of media, particularly visual mediums like film are heavily influenced by our own biases, interests, beliefs andmost importantly our... well, our gaze. The creators can try to steer us with meaningful shots and voiced thought, directing actors or animating a scene to be a certain way, but ultimately we all inevitably draw our own conclusions.

A fan of Zutara can argue that Kataang is the epitome of catering to the male gaze, while Zutara is the answer to women everywhere's wishes.

While I can just as easily argue the exact opposite.

It really is just a matter of interpretation. What is really interesting, is what our gaze says about us. What we can see of ourselves when the subject gazes back at us.

I may want to analyse how Zutara caters to the male gaze in some instances, if those of you who manage to slog through this essay enjoy the subject matter.

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

I'm all for the use of non-gendered language and options for non-binary people, I just want them to make linguistic sense. "Nibling" sounds dumb. If you want a gender-neutral word for niece/nephew, it should share etymology with them. They both descend from the Proto-Indo-European root *nepot-, so there are a ton of plausible sounding options for derivations that don't call attention to themselves as neologisms.

Nepot is too visually similar to nephew, and sounds too much like the derivative nepotism, so maybe drop the p like Spanish did and go with something like nete or niete. Niete is too close to niece; nite, maybe? Or neti? Neit, neiti, neite, nit. These all look like real words, not clumsy 21st century portmanteaus like "nibling." If p and t are no good, we can go with another unvoiced stop like k. Nik, neik, nike (probably not that one), niki, neki, neke, nekie, so many possibilities, anything but "nibling."

Same thing with aunt/uncle. I've never heard a non-gendered term that sounds like something a layperson would use.

Hewhos became ewos, became avus, became avunculus, became uncle. Aunt is derived from words that mean mother; amma, amita, ante, aunt. I thought the word parent derived from the same root as paternal meaning father, but no, it's from the PIE root *pere-, mening to bring forth or produce. Sibling ultimately derives from the PIE root for self/oneself (*swe-), literally meaning same blood, related to myself, kin. "Parent's sibling" could be derived from swepere, swepar, suepar, supar, maybe something like sempar, "same parent/same source," simpar (maybe avoid anything with simp in it). Or "one source," onpar, honpar, paron, paroin, peron, peroine (from PIE *hoinom for one). I'm not thinking of germanic soundshifts, how these roots would evolve directly into English, I'm thinking broader, like how they would evolve in Latin or French to be loaned into English. If you want a neutral word that looks like it belongs with aunt and uncle, maybe something like umpar, umper, ompar, onpar, onper, onter, anything like that.